"Chubais’s profit was 1300%"
In continuation of publications on the site "rucriminal.info" on August 07, 2022 under the title "It’s much tastier than paying a million" and on August 29, 2022 under the title "We are poor people, don’t give us all the profits" at the disposal of the source was another a recording of a meeting in early 2016 between characters already known from previous numerous publications: Dmitry Mints, Ilya Gulin (financial director of Mintsev companies), Elena Orlova (legal officer of Mintsev companies), Sergey Krychenko (Adjutant Anatoly Chubais) and Olga Butkova (financial director of SFO CONCEPT CONSULTING LLC). This is the team that laundered money for Anatoly Chubais.
Об этом сообщает Политика РУ
At this meeting, the participants discussed the issues of finding ways to provide Anatoly Chubais with ways to launder money through the Closed-End Investment Fund "Perspective Companies".
When Boris Mints (participation 45.2%) and Anatoly Chubais (participation 54.8%) created the Closed-End Investment Fund "Perspective Companies", the latter, being a "poor" person, did not pay for the Fund’s PAI.
It is clear that in order to pay for the SHARE (ZPIF) "Perspective Companies" in the amount of 479,000,000 rubles, it was necessary to find a rich person.
As a result of the meeting, the desired rich individual was found, he turned out to be Ruben Vardanyan.
Anatoly Chubais sold his friend, colleague and business partner Boris Mints, land plots located at the address: Tver region, Ostashkovsky district, Pavlikha village, at a price 13 times more expensive than their actual value. From this transaction, the profit received in the form of the declared income of Anatoly Chubais amounted to 1,300%.
Subsequently, the above land plots by Boris Mints were included in the closed-end mutual investment fund (ZPIF) "Perspective Companies" created by him and Anatoly Chubais earlier. This ZPIF was managed first by Otkritie Management Company LLC, and later by Sever Asset Management Management Company LLC (beneficiary Boris Mints).
After the implementation of the scheme discussed in the attached audio recording by "accomplices" to Anatoly Chubais, in 2015 a declared income of more than 1.8 billion rubles was formed and shown. Immediately after being received by Anatoly Chubais, these funds were loaned to Boris Mints!
It should be assumed that a similar scheme to legalize funds and conceal the passage of such large amounts through the accounts of the Cypriot company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED in the form of loans was carried out by Anatoly Chubais, Boris Mints and their team in relation to the suburban residence of the residential complex "Peredelki".
As indicated in previous publications, the estimated cost of the "LCD Alteration" was in the region of 47,000,000 US dollars, and the market value was determined according to 3 (Three) independent assessments, including a judicial one in the amount of: from 34,000,000 to 36,500,000 US dollars .
Ignoring the actual costs incurred by the Swiss company SFO Concept AG JSC for the construction of the ZhK Peredelki and its actual market value. Anatoly Chubais and Messrs. Mintsy established and adjusted the assessment of "LCD Alteration" to their requirements, which is significantly less than the money actually spent on the construction, as well as its actual market value, in the region of 8,000,000 US dollars.
Anatoly Chubais and his team made it a rule to eliminate business partners and subordinates objectionable to him by initiating criminal cases against them and bringing them to criminal responsibility.
This happened this time also with respect to Ilya Suchkov, in connection with his refusal to participate, together with Anatoly Chubais and the Mintsy, in money laundering and tax evasion events.
The initiation of criminal case No. 123632 against Ilya Suchkov on far-fetched grounds was not long in coming.
It was on the initiative of Mintsev in relation to Ilya Suchkov on the false statements of representatives (Kuksa R.V. and Mosin D.V.) of the Cypriot company O1 TRUST SERVICES LIMITED (beneficiary Boris Mints) and the false statement of Anatoly Chubais about the alleged theft of his property in 2016- 2017 initiated and merged into one 2 (two) criminal cases under Art. 159 (fraud) and Art. 158 (theft) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
When initiating and investigating criminal case No. 123632, the participants in the so-called pre-trial and trial proceedings were: the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Odintsovo city district, represented by investigators Egorova Zh.A. and Mogilevskaya A.G. and Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow, represented by Judge Filchenko M.C.
Without going into details of the grossest violations of the law (CPC and Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) committed by the investigators of the SU UMVD of Russia for the Odintsovo urban district Egorova Zh.A. and Mogileyvskaya A.G. it should be said that the criminal case No. 123632 is completely falsified.
5 (Five) odd years investigators Egorova Zh.A. and Mogilevskaya A.G. manipulated, forged the materials of the case, interrogated false witnesses who do not remember the essential circumstances of the case, the proxies of Anatoly Chubais, namely his “adjutant" Sergey Krychenko and Olga Butkova, who are the general director and accountant of the Russian family office of Anatoly Chubais, who built his house in the village of Peredelki, Odintsovo district, Moscow region.
The ordered nature of the criminal case No. 123632 is visible to the naked eye from the case materials. Everything is broken, cynically broken. It follows from the materials of the case that for the investigators the words “right”, the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation are offensive.
In connection with the inconsistency of the criminal case No. 123632 itself and the grossest violations
of the rights of the accused, the courts of Moscow and the Moscow Region twice in 2020 and in 2021 returned
case for investigation.
At the moment, criminal case No. 123632 is being considered by the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow (Judge Filchenko M.S.).
This period of the trial in the case should be told in more detail.
According to the circumstances of the prosecution, criminal case No. 123632 was sent to the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow on absolutely far-fetched grounds. Now it becomes clear that the change in jurisdiction was not accidental, case No. 123632 was sent for a new consideration of the Khamovnichesky District Court of Moscow and entrusted to judge Filchenko M.S. During the consideration of case No. 01-0104/2022, it became clear in our opinion that the judge was extremely interested in the outcome of the case.
There are good reasons for such an assumption, namely:
- the court does not acquaint the defendants and their lawyers with the materials of the case;
- the court continues to consider criminal case No. 01-0104/2022 in the absence of written material evidence in it, indicated in the indictment as stored in the case file;
- the court does not consider the petitions of the defendants;
- the court refuses to issue audio recordings and minutes of court sessions;
- the court refuses to call defense witnesses;
- the court unlawfully admits to participation in court hearings that do not have the authority of representatives of the victims — Mosin D.The. and lawyer Goryaynov I.Yu.;
- the court continues to consider criminal case No. 01-0104/2022 in the absence of the victim Chubais
A.B. despite the obvious, significant discrepancies in the amount allegedly inflicted on Chubais by A.B. damage, i.e. on the circumstances underlying the indictment.
The above circumstances, in our opinion, clearly indicate that Anatoly Chubais, from abroad, continues to control the entire course of the trial, in order to stop all extremely dubious events from a legal point of view with his participation.
Rucriminal.info publishes a transcript of the conversation of the team that laundered money for Anatoly Chubais.
(Ilya Gulin (financial director of Mintsev), Elena Orlova (employee of Mintsev’s office), Sergey Krychenko (Adjutant Anatoly Chubais) and his financial director Olga Butkova)
Sergey Krychenko: the first thing we do is closed-end mutual funds (closed-end mutual funds “Perspective Companies”), right?
Ilya Gulin: no ZPIFs (“Promising Companies”) are second to us. First of all, we have calculations on shares
Sergei Krychenko: that’s what I’m talking about. I mean it
Ilya Gulin: there are historical settlements between 2 (Two) shareholders that allow the client (meaning Anatoly Chubais), one of the shareholders, to save 1 million US dollars on personal income tax. Since these accounts were not closed today, we returned to this topic, I met with Sergey (Krychenko is implied) on Friday, which I think everyone knows about. There is a technical possibility to pull out a running amount from other business processes in order to drive it away in a very short period. There is only one question in this regard. How to get money for a client (Anatoly Chubais)?
Olga Butkova: through a management company?
Ilya Gulin: the management company has nothing to do with it. He (Anatoly Chubais) has a debt as an individual
Olga Butkova: now we just take product 479? (it implies a debt of 479 million rubles from Anatoly Chubais to Boris Mints). Are we talking about this amount now?
Ilya Gulin: yes, of course
Olga Butkova: the calculation of mutual funds (“Promising Companies”) is the first question I wanted to ask. How will income be generated through the management company, transferred to the account or in another way?
Ilya Gulin: Closed-end mutual investment fund (Promising companies) will receive income when the closed-end mutual fund is disbanded. Naturally, the money will go to the closed mutual investment fund, the management company will distribute it
Olga Butkova: and the management company is a tax agent for personal income tax. This is the question that bothered me
Ilya Gulin: yes. Naturally, she is a tax agent and by the time the income is distributed, the shareholders will need to clearly understand how much personal income tax she will have to pay, that is, from the entire sale amount or not. We’re meeting here to discuss the possibility of paying less. Accordingly the question. How will the shareholder (Anatoly Chubais) receive money into his account in order to pay it further to the second shareholder (Boris Mints) to pay off the debt? This will reduce your tax base.
Sergey Krychenko: who knows the answer? Let’s see who has any thoughts on this. Olka Vladimirovna (implying Olga Butkova) have something to say?
Olga Butkova: I assumed that, having received income, the management company would withhold the entire amount of personal income tax from the accumulated part. Somehow there will be a debt of 479 (479 million rubles is meant) to Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints) in some form returned
Ilya Gulin: we need to pay it off earlier, before closing, in order to pay less taxes
Olga Butkova: No, this is all clear, I just don’t understand very well how we will give the management company data on the payment of closed-end mutual funds, because we will pay and the management company will calculate income. It does not seem to reduce by 60,000,000 (rubles are implied)
Ilya Gulin: will reduce if there is a payment order confirming payment
Olga Butkova: or a receipt? Or do you need a payment order?
Ilya Gulin: I think that it is a payment order, a receipt for such an amount, when it comes to settlements of 500,000,000 (rubles) between such well-known persons (Anatoly Chubais — Boris Mints), it seems to me that a cash settlement of 500,000,000 ( rubles) is somewhat cool!
Sergey Krychenko: revives the interest of the public
Olga Butkova: I do not agree because in the tax office, something is confirmed within the framework of all its checks. According to the certificate, he (Anatoly Chubais) has no creditors, he only has a debt to Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints)
Ilya Gulin: there is only one way. It is clear that this is the substitution of one loan for another. Question. Who will give? It seems to me that we need to communicate with respected colleagues (Elena Orlova is meant) on the subject of mediation in this process. We somehow expose money to you, and you put it on Anatoly Borisovich (Anatoly Chubais) so that he pays off Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints). Let’s discuss a possible scheme, a possible
Elena Orlova: come on, but I don’t understand the sentence
Ilya Gulin: the proposal is very simple
Elena Orlova: we have a very limited number of individuals from whom Anatoly Borisovich (Anatoly Chubais) can accept money
Ilya Gulin: I understand. We cannot give him because he owes us anyway, he (Anatoly Chubais) owes Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints), respectively, the company of Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints) if he gives him (Anatoly Chubais) a loan so that he (Anatoly Chubais) repays Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints) is somewhat strange. It is obvious that some external physicist is needed. We won’t do it. We believe that this is not correct. It seems to me that it is enough that we can divert this amount of money (assuming a debt of 479 million rubles) from other processes, our own
Elena Orlova: when you say the company of Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints). What companies do you mean in general or are they banks?
Ilya Gulin: we don’t have banks
Elena Orlova: Well, he (it means OTKRITIE Bank) is not friendly?
Ilya Gulin: well, he is friendly, well, he is not ours. There is such an attitude that there should not be a direct relationship either with the "OPENING" or with us. Therefore, I would suggest discussing exactly the scenario that we will somehow do this through you.
Elena Orlova: what? We do not have Russian companies that can pay that kind of money
Ilya Gulin: let’s think somehow I don’t know
Sergey Krychenko: how much money can be diverted?
Ilya Gulin: two, three days. This is a purely run-through story, so you need to clearly say everything. Where to? How? When? etc. It does not have to be a linear movement, ideally, of course, it should be done in a gap. We put at point "A" he (Anatoly Chubais) received from point "B", it is clear that this implies the presence of a similar amount at point "B" so as not to drive linearly. This gives, in principle, a beautiful story, such a non-linear
That is, we have the opportunity to divert money and drive away. We have this week.
Sergey Krychenko: what do you say? What thoughts?
Elena Orlova: Sergey, it seems to me that we are looking for everything together. We do not have a structure that can issue such a loan, but at the level of a physicist, we have exhausted investing in the closure of other issues
Sergey Krychenko: Well, if we’ve exhausted it, we’ve exhausted it
Elena Orlova: these resources are also not endless. Let’s discuss where the physicist gets money from. Where will he get the money?
Ilya Gulin: in debt, the company that has them, most likely a non-resident
Elena Orlova: that is, we need a physicist who is ready to borrow from a non-resident? Sergey (Sergey Krychenko) can be such a physicist?
Ilya Gulin: It seems to me that an ordinary physicist is not suitable. We have a client (Anatoly Chubais) who cannot borrow from just anyone. You (Elena Orlova) are also called to help. We just give money to pay off the debt. We are now discussing the possibility of saving 1 million US dollars. We say what we can do in this situation. In general, we were the initiators in this situation. This is what we’re talking about
Sergey Krychenko: that is, we need a physicist, a rich physicist, right?
Ilya Gulin: Well, by and large, yes. which we finance
Elena Orlova: how will you finance it? some foreign company?
Ilya Gulin: Well, most likely yes. Should I say the name?
Elena Orlova: name and jurisdiction
Ilya Gulin: I can’t name non-Russian now
Elena Orlova: some kind of offshore?
Ilya Gulin: yes Cypriot maybe
Elena Orlova: well, that is some kind of offshore incomprehensible. belonging to someone
Ilya Gulin: well, she belongs to the group anyway
Elena Orlova: will it really belong to the O1 Group?
Ilya Gulin: maybe so and so. This is discussed if there is feedback.
Elena Orlova: Well, I’m asking you questions to discuss
Ilya Gulin: maybe so and so. I answer them
Elena Orlova: specially you can choose a beautiful offshore company. What does beautiful offshore mean? That is, Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints) will be her real shareholder?
Ilya Gulin: I think yes, we can discuss it. Everything will be one way or another a structure that is officially included in the perimeter of the O1 Group
Elena Orlova: issuing a loan?
Ilya Gulin: yes
Elena Orlova: to an individual?
Ilya Gulin: Well, here again we need to discuss, but we want to do it beautifully. Ideally, of course, I would like to break it so that there is no direct, such a frontal story. Hypothetically, it could be done through 2 (Two) individuals, that is, one received, withdrew, the other contributed and transferred like non-cash. It’s like a break. You can do it all within one day
Sergei Krychenko: somehow not very nice, right? Company physicist, physicist in debt boss (Anatoly Chubais) extinguishes the debt (Boris Mints). Somehow not very pretty.
Ilya Gulin: ideally, of course, yes, so that there is some kind of gap, well, that is, one physicist received this money, withdrew it roughly in cash, the other deposited it into his account on the same day. How to formally conclude a loan agreement with each other and it will be there at the level of bank accounts
A solid, well-known person with a reputation can do much more than a simple physicist. Therefore, a simple physicist as a person giving a loan to Anatoly Borisovich (Chubais), this seems to me an unaffordable luxury. There should be a solid weighty character, well, it seems to me.
Elena Orlova: in our country, the loan issued to Anatoly Borisovich (Chubais) will be repaid very quickly, it will not be included in the declaration. I don’t understand, the loan will go through the accounts anyway
Sergey Krychenko: exactly what is on the bills
Elena Orlova: well, then why run the accounts
Ilya Gulin, Sergey Krychenko, Olga Butkova: so that the tax office has no questions
Elena Orlova: we refused to consider the receipt in principle
Olga Butkova: no. We are considering a receipt, but we say that there are risks that the tax authorities may find fault with this. We talked about the receipt when this money came to us
Elena Orlova: I want to protect this story from you, because this story is extremely important for you
Olga Butkova: but now I’m not quite sure. We will not be given 35,000,000 (rubles), but why? Ilya, my question is this, these 479 (479 million rubles are meant) they will all go to Boris Iosifovich (Boris Mints) will they not come back to us in any way?
Ilya Gulin: this is the running sum. Of course. It must pass before the closing of ZPIF ("Perspective Companies")
Olga Butkova: she is like a running sum, but then she will not return to us
Ilya Gulin: now wait, she’s just a runaway
Elena Orlova: let’s think logically. We consider a loan from some foreign company to be normal, but do we consider settlements between physicists on a receipt not normal?
Ilya Gulin: well, the tax office definitely thinks
Elena Orlova: we must have a receipt received before the closing of the ZPIF (“Promising Companies”), for this receipt we will only have the question of where the money came from, that is, you must somehow get it in loans
Olga Butkova: yes
Elena Orlova: usually if we have a receipt, then this is a guaranteed problem with the tax, right?
Olga Butkova: well, considering that I have been submitting declarations for the 5th year, there is a general problem with all documents, everything is checked. I’m not saying that the probability of something like that is direct, but given the large amount. Cashless somehow, more guaranteed
Sergei Krychenko: OK, but if we do that, let’s say we ask some rich physicist for a loan under a loan agreement. Can we do that?
Elena Orlova: Sergey, let’s discuss the scheme again
Sergey Krychenko: Well, now I’m trying to formulate it somehow. They borrowed money from a good, wealthy physicist under a cash loan agreement. We can take it, it is not necessary to drive them from account to account?
Ilya Gulin: in my understanding, it is highly desirable
Sergei Krychenko: highly desirable. Assuming there is no such possibility. Well, they took cash
Elena Orlova: then who gives you loans is obliged to explain the origin of this money
Sergey Krychenko: if he has this money in his account, well, let’s assume there
Elena Orlova: if he has them on his account, there is no point in cashing out. And the question is, if they are not on the account, then their origin? We need a physicist who gives and cashes
Sergey Krychenko: to whom, what the hell is it how I want to take a loan? In what form to transfer to the account or take cash?
Ilya Gulin: we have a chain. Anatoly Borisovich (Chubais) will be asked where he got it? He will say here. To the second, where did you get it?
Sergey Krychenko: withdrew mine from the account and gave them. Well ask me the questions that will be asked, no seriously, that the competent authorities can ask
Olga Butkova: where did you get the money?
Sergey Krychenko: earned honest, overwork. I have this money declared. Next, what’s the question? Why did I decide to withdraw cash and give it away like that, and not overtake it from the account? Because it was convenient for me
Ilya Gulin: well, then there should be confirmation of the fact that he withdrew this money from the account
Elena Orlova: OK, but if we have such a fact of withdrawal from the account. He withdrew the entire 2014 and 2012 from the accounts, because I do not trust the banking system, which is logical
Sergei Krychenko: Yes, quite, but I only take them off to fold them up and then lend them to my dear Anatoly Borisovich (Chubais). Correctly? Holy business. So there must be documents confirming the fact of withdrawing money for this at least the amount. Correctly?
Elena Orlova: yes
Ilya Gulin: Elena, but returning to the topic, it just sounded that there is a limit on white income, and if it’s just borrowed funds
Elena Orlova: who has borrowed? Why borrowed? I borrowed to give here
Ilya Gulin: It’s just one thing if you take from your own company, from your own bank, etc., from your own business. Why not. If this is an understandable person (it means the desired individual who meets the criteria voiced), then he does not have to have income, he does not give, he can also borrow them somewhere. There is nothing shameful in this. It is important that the contractors of the main (Anatoly Chubais) have understandable people and there are no incomprehensible
Elena Orlova: well, let’s provide an understandable lender
Ilya Gulin: I think you just need to go the other way. Who will be the main contractor (Anatoly Chubais)?
Sergey Kryenko: Can Anatoly Borisovich (Chubais) take a loan from someone to return the money to Boris Iosifovich (Mints)?
Elena Orlova: he can even take a loan from Boris Iosifovich (Mints) to pay off the old contract. It’s just interest-bearing. They so agreed. In general, there is nothing crazy and terrible about this at all. Just much less turmoil than we start to wind up some circles. Let’s think about that too.
Sergey Krychenko: let’s go. What are the cons here?
Elena Orlova: who can show us what? There is an old debt, it needs to be closed, there is a tax reflection, this is already for criminal prosecution, if it happens, but the tax simply has a paid debt and the tax does not check the origin of the money in the account, all sorts of financial monitoring check the origin of the money in the account
Ilya Gulin: in my understanding there are a lot of signs of pretense in this whole story. The more Boris Iosifovich (Mints) finances Anatoly Borisovich (Chubais) “with his own money”, the less I like all this. Because this is how he (Boris Mints) initially bought it himself, he gave them (PAI ZPIF "Perspective Companies"), waited 4 (Four) years, did not receive payment, did not receive interest, then he himself gave money, so that’s all repay yourself. Here’s how to tell you...
Olga Butkova: By the way, the tax authorities told me that 4 (Four) years the obligations are not fulfilled, additional interest can be charged
Ilya Gulin: yes. That’s why
Sergey Krychenko: good. Suppose we find some other physicist, a completely different physicist, not Boris Iosifovich (Mints)
Elena Orlova: You want to set up some respected physicist, any respected physicist will tell you who the counterparty is
Ilya Gulin: we will tell him. We can give west-west to your structure, we can give you directly, depending on what the structure will be, you need to go to the specifics
Elena Orlova: how can you give directly to this person?
Ilya Gulin: I already said, a loan from a non-resident company. If this physicist has a free infrastructure and possible financial resources to break the chain, it will be even better and it will probably still be possible to pay something extra for this. You just need to go from a physicist, from a concrete one, what for to theorize. We say that A.B. (Anatoly Chubais) there must be a clear counterparty
Elena Orlova: Good. Then we have now determined that you need a physicist who has a structure that can provide him (Anatoly Chubais) with money in his account
Ilya Gulin: ideally yes
Elena Orlova: here we answered the question of who we need to find
Ilya Gulin: I honestly expected that we would do all this using a simpler scheme, that we would meet and understand that the reserves were exhausted
Elena Orlova: but you don’t even answer the question of whether your structure can provide us with quality financing
Ilya Gulin: I answered
Elena Orlova: for these purposes, I don’t like the story most of all, that I also need a structure capable of doing all this
Ilya Gulin: Don’t you think it would be better?
Elena Orlova: I don’t know.
Ilya Gulin: But it seems to me that it would be interesting, right, beautiful for the main thing (Anatoly Chubais) to break apart, first of all. It’s obvious to me
Elena Orlova: We have now identified the problem, we need to solve it. When is it planned to repay closed mutual funds (“Promising companies”)?
Ilya Gulin: We need to solve all this at the moment because, roughly speaking, we also have this run-through money, roughly speaking, this week we have.
To be continued